Ideas. 1. If you lose the battle you get 0 points. Power doesn't matter. That should stop the suicide attacks for points. 2. To protect new players and weak players, then you cannot attack anyone that has less than half your power and you cannot attack anyone with more than double your power. That means players can only attack other players that are on their skill level. Of course this will mean that the players that are raising their power levels quickly will have fewer conquer opportunities and fewer xtal opportunities. Just a couple of ideas that might make this system work. I am Griff Watching on f2. Was in the winning alliance on f2 last era as griffintalley . Currently I am ranked 25th at the time of this post. I am still fairly new and I don't think the scoring system is fair to all and actually helps the weaker players too much. have a great day.

I think the losing battle gives you 0 score is already in You only get points if you kill more than you lose.

As for your second suggestion.. That would render conquering completely impossible.. I don't think that will be very well received at all. Imagine an alliance getting 500 crystals, then quickly rushing units to drop their power so that their enemy can not attack them anymore.. I can see quite some reasons how it would go wrong.

Good to know that losing gets you 0 points. And as far as the second idea, that would be the only real way to protect newer players but it does have a lot of problems with it also. I never said that it didnt, but I am at least throwing out ideas. And you are correct in stating that conquers would all be done with and you have given a very good example of how the system could be manipulated.

In other words, regardless of what changes you put in there will always be ways to manipulate the system. What sucks about this is the fact that there are players spending time trying to find loopholes for easy score and if they would just put that much time into playing the game the way it should be, then they would be high ranked anyway. Anyway, I voted to keep it but with some changes. Maybe have your battle score only last 100 ticks or 200 ticks. Then you have to keep battling in order to keep your battle score up. You cant just attack in the first 300-500 ticks and expect those points to be there at the end of the era. Just another idea. I am not saying these are good ideas, but I am trying. I see a lot of people complaining but not a lot putting any ideas out there.

Good to know that losing gets you 0 points. And as far as the second idea, that would be the only real way to protect newer players but it does have a lot of problems with it also. I never said that it didnt, but I am at least throwing out ideas. And you are correct in stating that conquers would all be done with and you have given a very good example of how the system could be manipulated.

Indeed.. The question in that case would be how much we want to protect new players. I think we've already had too many changes that nerfed people relying on income from conquers.

Quote:

In other words, regardless of what changes you put in there will always be ways to manipulate the system. What sucks about this is the fact that there are players spending time trying to find loopholes for easy score and if they would just put that much time into playing the game the way it should be, then they would be high ranked anyway. Anyway, I voted to keep it but with some changes. Maybe have your battle score only last 100 ticks or 200 ticks. Then you have to keep battling in order to keep your battle score up. You cant just attack in the first 300-500 ticks and expect those points to be there at the end of the era. Just another idea. I am not saying these are good ideas, but I am trying. I see a lot of people complaining but not a lot putting any ideas out there.

That's the problem with most changes There will always be those that abuse systems. It's become less bad now that you only get score if you actually win the battle, but because of the 50% power rule the system is still heavily disbalanced in favor of those with low power.

As for your idea, that would be a way in which the score you have gotten from battles can be lost indeed.. Although I believe the problem with this approach is that people might hold off waging wars until the end of the era so that they can go into the Hall of Fame with as high score as possible.

It is true that perhaps not everyone is putting many ideas forward, but for me personally that is everytime I come up with a way to adapt this system in my head, I also think of ways to abuse it and reasons this adaptation would not work. For example I have thought of making it so that you get score from anyone you kill, but then you have the problem of "newbie bashing". So I thought of adding the rule of at least 50 power, but that means you do not get rid of the disbalance in favor of those with low power. Also, that would not be fair to high power players as often the players that are most annoying and hardest to kill are those that have low power but still quite a few squads of range that could do damage if you didn't deal with them soon enough.

Then another system I thought of was to keep the current system but make it so that you can lose the score when you get conquered. This way you won't see alliances that have lost still with very high score. However in this case the winning alliance would still have reasons to keep low power, as this would be the easiest way to gain score. So I did not suggest that system either.

Niracas idea has some good parts too but again does not deal with the core problem of being rewarded for lower power.

Which is why in the end the best system in my mind was the one I have suggested with seperate score for armor/damage/range and getting score for anyone you kill with over 40/50 power. However as I mentioned earlier I still think this does not fix all the problems which is why I still prefer getting rid of the system entirely over introducing this new system.

I really am trying to think of fixes/changes, but I am becoming more and more convinced that whatever way you put it, this system is flawed at the very basis.

_________________Won both Championship Eras as rank 1.. Waiting to make it 3 out of 3.

I liked the new scoring system (and yes, it should be tweaked).Reason is simple: during it was active, it was the first time ever, when people who is not in the winning alliance, but still who really deserved (by being active and hard working), had chance to be in top players board.(All the other times, we saw only people from the winning alliance, and people who was ignoring all battles, and just building army)

People who against this system, are mostly the ones who hates any kind of changes at all and/or got used to get good scores just by watching and building army whole era without a single fight.

New scoring system does change the game dramatically, but I personally like it.

Here is a good idea: why won't devs make 2 separate worlds - the one with new score correction and second without. Players will vote by participating. (the world that will get the most players two/three times in a row, is the right one)

cosmin1980 wrote:

Add the eras won by the people who said no to this system. Add the eras won by the guys who said yes. It will be no contest. Decision is not taken by "stupidity in numbers" but by looking to those who excel in a certain field. And we, for one reason or another, have proven again and again that we are good at this.

What do you consider winning? I feel I won just by getting into the top 20. In this case, I approve new scoring system.

cosmin1980 wrote:

So any half brained service provider (aka BD staff) will listen to its VIP clients, the once who bring all the money and all the charm of the game, and do what we ask: take this stupid score system out completely.

Agree, I'm spending money on this game, and I asking to keep it (but tweak it...)

griffintalley wrote:

What sucks about this is the fact that there are players spending time trying to find loopholes for easy score and if they would just put that much time into playing the game the way it should be, then they would be high ranked anyway.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum